Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch and discussion) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch and discussion)
Date
Msg-id 20210327142316.GA32517@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch and discussion)  (Paul Guo <guopa@vmware.com>)
Responses Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch and discussion)  (Paul Guo <guopa@vmware.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2021-Jan-27, Paul Guo wrote:

> Here is a git diff against the previous patch. I’ll send out the new
> rebased patches after the consensus is reached.

Hmm, can you post a rebased set, where the points under discussion
are marked in XXX comments explaining what the issue is?  This thread is
long and old ago that it's pretty hard to navigate the whole thing in
order to find out exactly what is being questioned.

I think 0004 can be pushed without further ado, since it's a clear and
simple fix.  0001 needs a comment about the new parameter in
RecursiveCopy's POD documentation.

As I understand, this is a backpatchable bug-fix.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                            39°49'30"S 73°17'W



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUG] orphaned function
Next
From: John Naylor
Date:
Subject: Re: non-HOT update not looking at FSM for large tuple update